Author: Theo van der Storm
Date: 14:25:41 10/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2004 at 17:16:55, Ed Schröder wrote: >On October 24, 2004 at 14:11:06, Theo van der Storm wrote: > >>On October 24, 2004 at 13:03:15, Volker Richey wrote: >> >>>Round 1: Kallisto - Diep 0 - 1 >>>Round 3: Nexus - IsiChess 1 - 0 >>>Round 3: Kallisto - ProDeo 0 - 1 >>>Round 8: Diep - Goldbar 1 - 0 >>>Round 11: IsiChess - ProDeo 0 - 1 >>>Round 11: Nexus - XiniX 1 - 0 >>> >>>1. Diep 38,00 >>>2. Nexus 37,75 >>>3. ProDeo 37,50 >>> >>>Volker >> >>The games you mentioned appear to be correct, >>but in the SB point it seems you erroneously subtracted >>three Neurosis games worth 2 SB for each as well. >> >>So I wrote: >>1. Diep 8,5 40.00 >>2. Nexus 8,5 39.75 >>3. Pro Deo 8.5 39.50 >> >>The rule was elected by the participants in an earlier >>tournament and published before the start of this tournament. >> >>Best, >>Theo > > >If the rules of 2004 would have been used in 2001 would Rebel have won then? The rule hadn't been invented yet. >http://www.computerschaak.nl/docc01.html > ># Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516 P BU SB G >1 Chess Tiger 14.6 X 1 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 . 1 ½ 1 1 . . . 9 70 57¾ 11 >2 Rebel Century 4 0 X 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 . . . . 1 9 66 50¾ 11 > >I think the answer is yes, I remember that Rebel lost many points because it had >to play EEC in the last round while it had a lead before the last round. The answer is no, because numbers 11 and 12 together had 9.5 points reducing Tiger's SB to 48.25 Numbers 9 and 16 together had 5.5 points reducing Rebel's SB to 45.25 >I am not complaining, rules are rules, but a play-off somehow sounds more fair >than randomness. Just a consideration. > >Ed If the game between the top-2 is not a draw, then that game will usually be dominant for their SB and with good reason. It's certainly not random. In 2004 we have a top-3, so it gets more complicated. Still, the rule has good statistical properties and gets rid of the effect of bad pairings. I consider a blitz play-off more random, or even worse than that: more a reflection of the quality of the operators in stead of the programs. I respect your opinion, but as you will understand I disagree. I hope you appreciate the fact that we asked the Oct. 2003 participants for their opinion and implemented just that. Theo PS: Good Luck with Pro Deo next time!
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.